Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Rat [2014] PGNC 230; N5783 (23 August 2014)

N5783

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 875 OF 2004

BETWEEN;

THE STATE

V

MATHIAS KLINGIO SIAPAN RAT
Defendant

Kimbe: Cannings J
2014: 7, 18, 20, 23 August

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – armed robbery – Criminal Code, Sections 386(1), (2)(a) and (b) – guilty plea – store robbery – K18,500.00 stolen.

A man pleaded guilty to committing an armed robbery of a store. The store manager and employees were held up and threatened. K3, 500.00 cash and store goods worth K15, 000.00 were stolen. This is the judgment on sentence.

Held:

(1) The maximum sentence for armed robbery is life imprisonment.

(2) Mitigating factors are: the offender pleaded guilty; he has no prior convictions; he had a minimal role; though violence was threatened, no actual physical violence was inflicted.

(3) Aggravating factors are: a large amount of money stolen, which has not been recovered; the offender acted in a gang; victims inevitably traumatised by the incident; the offender broke bail (or escaped) and a bench warrant was issued in 2004, resulting in long delay in resolving case.

(4) A sentence of four years was imposed, the pre-sentence period in custody was deducted and no part of the sentence was suspended.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Gimble v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 271
Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759
Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890
Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642
The State v Aaron Lahu (2005) N2798
The State v Alphonse Polpolio and Jeffery Baru (2006) N4514
The State v Dickson Kauboi CR No 495/2001, 07.06.06
The State v Jacky Vutnamur & Kaki Kialo (No 3) (2005) N2919
The State v Justin Komboli (2005) N2891
The State v Kia Tala Moksy CR 785/2005, 12.08.05
The State v Lesley Cletus Malo (2006) N4520

SENTENCE

This was a judgment on sentence for armed robbery.

Counsel

F K Popeu, for the State
D Kari, for the offender

23rd August, 2014

1. CANNINGS J: This is the sentence for Mathias Klingio Siapan Rat who pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery and has been convicted of that offence under Sections 386(1) and (2)(a) and (b)of the Criminal Code. The robbery was committed on Friday 5 March 2004 at Hoskins. He boarded a boat at Gigo with a number of others and they went to Hoskins, there being a number of weapons on board: three homemade guns, two pinch bars, a crowbar, a bushknife and a slingshot. Upon arrival at about 8.00 pm, his friends went to the Centre Point Trading store, gained entry to the premises, held up the female manager and employees, and stole K3,500.00 cash and store goods worth K15,000.00.

Antecedents

2. The offender has no prior convictions.

Allocutus

3. The offender was given the opportunity to address the court. He said:

"I say sorry to the court for what I have done. It happened a long time ago. I am now married and I have a block. Both parents are deceased. I am the only one looking after the family. I was only the watchman. I ask for mercy and a non-custodial sentence."

Other Matters of Fact

4. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will be given the benefit of reasonable doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890). I will take into account that he made admissions to Police when interviewed at Buluma on 8 March 2004.

Pre-Sentence Report

5. The court was presented with a report prepared by the Kimbe office of the Community Based Corrections Service.

Personal details of Mathias Klingio

Submissions by Defence Counsel

6. Mr Kari put forward a number of mitigating factors: the guilty plea, the lack of prior conviction, minimal involvement. He submitted that a sentence of no more than three years imprisonment is warranted, which should be suspended because of the strong mitigating factors.

Submissions by the State

7. Mr Popeu countered by submitting that the offender played a major role as he was the skipper. Aaron Lahu (The State v Aaron Lahu (2005) N2798) was given three years. This offender should receive four.

Decision Making Process

8. To determine the appropriate penalty I will adopt the following decision making process:

• step 1: what is the maximum penalty?
• step 2: what is a proper starting point?
• step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?
• step 4: what is the head sentence?
• step 5: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted?
• step 6: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?
  

Step 1: What Is The Maximum Penalty?

9. For armed robbery (Criminal Code, Sections 386(1), (2), (a) and (b)) – the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. However, I have discretion to impose less than the maximum term and suspend part or the entire sentence under Section 19 of the Criminal Code.

Step 2: What Is A Proper Starting Point?

10. The Supreme Court has given sentencing guidelines in a number of leading cases: Gimble v The State [1988-1989] PNGLR 271; Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564; Tau Jim Anis v The State (2000) SC642; and Phillip Kassman v The State (2004) SC759. Nowadays the starting points are: robbery of a house: ten years; robbery of a bank: nine years; robbery of a store, hotel, club, vehicle on the road: eight years; robbery of a person on the street: six years. This was a store robbery. The starting point is eight years.

Step 3: What Other Sentences Have Been Imposed For Equivalent Offences?

11. Some recent sentences for store robberies are shown in the following table.

Sentences for Store Robberies

Step 4: What Is The Head Sentence?

12. The head sentence will reflect the following mitigating and aggravating factors.

13. Mitigating factors:

• the offender pleaded guilty;
• he has no prior convictions;
• he had a minimal role;
• though violence was threatened, no actual physical violence was inflicted.
  

14. Aggravating factors:

• a large amount of money stolen, which has not been recovered;
• the offender acted in a gang;
• victims inevitably traumatised by the incident;
• the offender broke bail (or escaped) and a bench warrant was issued in 2004, resulting in long delay in resolving case.
  

15. The aggravating and mitigating factors are evenly matched. This was a very serious robbery and it has taken a long time for the offender to own up to his involvement. Comparing this case with the precedents referred to and applying the principle of parity of sentencing (in relation to Lahu), I uphold the position of the State and impose a sentence of four years imprisonment.

Step 5: Should The Pre-Sentence Period In Custody Be Deducted From The Term Of Imprisonment?

16. Yes. I decide under Section 3(2) of the Criminal Justice (Sentences) Act that that will be deducted from the term of imprisonment the whole of the pre-sentence period in custody, which is six months.

Step 6: Should All or Part of the Sentence Be Suspended?

17. No. The seriousness of this major armed robbery, involving firearms, and the fact that the offender broke bail or escaped and has been at large for a long time mean that there should be no suspension.

SENTENCE

18. Mathias Klingio Siapan Rat, having been convicted of one count of robbery contrary to Section 386(1) of the Criminal Code in circumstances of aggravation under Section 386(2)(a) and (b), namely he was armed with a dangerous and offensive weapon and in company with other persons, is sentenced as follows:

Sentenced accordingly,
_________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the offender